It will mainly be used for internet and photo retouching (using GIMP). It will have windows 8.1.
Am I really going to notice a big jump in performance if I install an SSD over a traditional HDD?
If SSD I was going to get a Samsung 120GB (will have a seperate traditional HDD for storage), if an SSD isn't really necessary, which disc should I go for? (Not bothered about the ulitimate in storage size for this, it will just be OS and applications).
I had a 120GB but it started filling up with the numerous programs I have installed so I swapped it for a 240GB Samsung. I have data on a 3TB mechanical hard drive.
I am only a light user, really. Are the drives reliable enough? I have read that they have a more limited life than mechanical drives.
Having said that, I have read that the tiny mechanical laptop HDDs have a reduced life compared to the larger "normal" models, but the one in my laptop has been switched on and off twice a day for 7 years, so maybe horses for courses...
All solid-state media - including USB drives - has a finite life. It's not one that the typical home user is ever going to get near, though, in the real world.
Yes. A HUGE difference. There's really no excuse not to go SSD for system/apps these days.
At home I have 120GB ssd for windows 7 and all programs and "working" stuff then a TB spinner for downloads, pictures, videos etc and everything else. Works a treat. :)
Another option that will suit this kind of workload would be a SSHD - i.e. a hybrid drive. These are a combination of a large spinning disk with a smaller SSD (typically 8GB) grafted into the same platform. The disk itself looks to the OS just like a normal SATA drive, but it manages its SSD storage automatically to cache the most frequently accessed files. Hence you get the best of both worlds - the storage capacity and price of spinning rust, and most of the performance of SSD when loading apps and OS components.
A 1TB hybrid ought to be in the order of £50 ex VAT
Early SSDs had problems with wear rates on the NAND flash cells (each has a maximum number of write cycles). Current models use spare capacity and wear levelling algorithms to pretty much eliminate that problem for any realistic domestic use.
Potentially yes, but it depends on what you will be using it for. It will speed up loading large programs and datasets enormously.
The latest models can completely saturate a basic SATA2 channel so you want to hang it onto a 6G SATA3 line if possible.
Check the benchmarks carefully - the cheaper small ones under 256GB are generally not fully populated with chips and a bit slower as a result.
Anandtech default light workload has a fast hot noisy VelociRaptor bringing up the rear. You may not get quite the implied level of performance enhancement with an SSD but it is a big boost used well.
formatting link
Benchmarks are also skewed by drives which do on the fly compression and so are astonishingly fast at handling empty benchmark files.
I reckon the Samsung Pro 256GB drives are good for what I want - which is optimum performance on bulk incompressible data for random access. YMMV
I'd suggest saving up for a 256GB drive though to get the higher performance that comes with it. As ever there are exceptions the Crucial M4 series is also pretty hot for incompressible data.
You should maintain an independent backup of your precious data too.
The other option is a hybrid SSD front end cache on a conventional disk.
Internet and photo manipulation, essentially. I know that photo manipulation likes as much RAM as it can get, I was thinking of getting the smaller SSD and using the 'spare' cash for more RAM.
Newer drives (especially MLC vs SLC) are tending to have fewer write cycles before they clap-out, but the capacity is increasing faster than the number of cycles is decreasing, so the with wear-levelling the overall durability still goes up!
I upgraded my work laptop to an SSD a few years ago, it gave such a welcome boost that within a few weeks I'd treated my home netbook to one too.
work machine got a 240GB and that's been fine, home machine got a 64GB (of which windows only got 32GB) and that's fine too though I have to keep a eye on space a bit more closely - but NO MORE DEFRAGGING!
I have a second SSD (the 120GB I originally used for my OS) for photo and video 'manipulation'. All of the images and shadow files that I'm working with are kept on it so reading and writing them is as fast as I can make it. That, and 24GB of RAM.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.